search_markets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full load. It adds genuine domain context about the returned entities and their downstream use, but omits operational behavior: pagination defaults, what happens when active/closed are both unset, and result-size limits. Safe read-only nature is only inferable from the verb 'search'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The Args block is well-organized, but the introductory sentences are padded with filler adverbs ('intrinsically', 'fundamentally', 'structural sort direction'). The second sentence's value is real but could be stated in fewer words, so structure is adequate rather than tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 10 optional params, no annotations, and an existing output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers parameters and domain model acceptably. It still leaves default pagination behavior, sort-field enumeration, and the boundary with search_events/get_clob_markets to inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all ten parameters with brief meanings (query filters by title/slug, tag is thematic, active/closed are strict filters, condition_id and clob_token_ids are lookup keys, limit/offset are pagination). Gaps remain for 'order' (allowed field values unstated) and 'ascending' (described only as 'structural sort direction').

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb+resource: 'Search and discover specific, individual Polymarket prediction markets.' It also explains what a market is (a yes/no question with tradeable outcome tokens) and what it yields (CLOB token IDs). Differentiation from siblings like search_events/get_clob_markets is only implied by the word 'individual', not stated outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that markets 'provide the fundamental CLOB token IDs intrinsically required for pricing and order book evaluations' hints at when to reach for this tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. search_events, get_clob_markets, or get_gamma_market, and no when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.